Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Explosion at Scaled Composites Kills 2, Injures 4 239

Animats writes "Details are scant at this time, but a explosion at the Scaled Composites rocket test facility has killed two people and seriously injured four more. The Los Angeles Times reports that the explosion was 'ignited by a tank of nitrous oxide.' This is Burt Rutan's facility, and the home of SpaceShip One and Virgin Galactic spacecraft development."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Explosion at Scaled Composites Kills 2, Injures 4

Comments Filter:
  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Thursday July 26, 2007 @11:46PM (#20006063) Journal
    NASA has NOTHING to do with this project. This is most likely scaled composite's facility (though details are missing). In fact, it is possible that 1 of the 2 was burt rutan. If he dies, then Scaled will fold up in the same fashion that cray research did. Rutan IS Scaled.

    My condolences to the families.
  • by Thagg ( 9904 ) <thadbeier@gmail.com> on Thursday July 26, 2007 @11:47PM (#20006065) Journal
    My condolences as well. I know that Rutan has done everything he could think of in the design to prevent any kind of explosion, and the purposely doesn't light the rocket until they're 10 miles away from almost everybody, just in case something unexpected does happen.

    Among the safety innovations of this rocket is that a single fiber optic cable is wound around and around the tank, so that if it ruptures anyplace it will cut the cable, and the rocket will be shut down immediately.

    That said, in a cold-flow test, there shouldn't be anything burning.

    I am sure that Burt and Richard Branson are terribly distressed by this. My deepest sympathies go out to the families of the killed and injured.

    Thad Beier
  • by PhotoGuy ( 189467 ) on Friday July 27, 2007 @12:15AM (#20006263) Homepage
    Details are very scarce, but apparently this was a cold-flow test -- they weren't intending to light the motor, just flow nitrous through it. Tank ruptured, and a big fireball. Evidence visible from pictures etc suggests nothing detonated.

    I did well in high school physics, but there is one thing I think I read/learned awhile back, and wonder if someone can confirm it, and its relevance to this event (if the parent poster quoted above is correct).

    The thing is this: that things can explode simply through rapid expansion, which generates heat and a shock wave and all the other nasties one would associate with a detonation, but without there being something detonating.

    I seem to recall that nitroglycerine doesn't ignite when it's jostled, but it just so rapidly expands to a ridiculous amount of its original volume, that it wreaks havok. Just like the ruptured tank in this case released expanding material so quickly that it caused a lot of damange (and sadly, deaths and injuries).

    Sorry if this is an ignorant question, but some people may want to know the distinction in this case, if the parent post is indeed correct.
  • Re:sorry (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Genda ( 560240 ) <mariet@go[ ]et ['t.n' in gap]> on Friday July 27, 2007 @12:21AM (#20006295) Journal

    Context is everything...

    Why does the needless death of a beautiful baby in a war torn nation touch us or tug harder at our heart strings than the equally tragic death of an old man in a traffic accident? Part of it is the loss of possibility, a life unfulfilled. Part of it is the sadness of losing something innocent to something so depraved and heartless as a snipers rifle or terrorists bomb.

    In the same way, we are especially touched by the loss of heroes. Heroes of the mind who force back the darkness, heroes of the will who challenge what's possible for people, and heroes of the heart who throw themselves fiercely at life's dare. Along the way we lose some of these heroes and a little piece of us dies with them, and that's why we mourn, that's why their passing is something special.

    It doesn't diminish the humanity or worth of others, it doesn't diminish the depth or breadth of the trajedy of losing others. It is however a special loss, and these men and women deserve our acknowlegement, our respect, and our tears at their passing. It will always be hardest when we lose that which is the best of ourselves.

    Who we make heroes... and how we mourn there passing more than anything else says something about who we are.

  • Re:sorry (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Friday July 27, 2007 @12:52AM (#20006465)

    This is a non-convincing argument. Pro-war people say the same thing "Oh how many people get murdered each year?" Rapists say "at least I didnt kill anyone." Murders say "at least I'm not a pedophile." This is moral relativism and a slippery slope.
    Oh grow up. You are comparing someone making a morbid joke with murders and rapists.
    Get off your high horse. Moral relativism, my ass.

    And I'm someone who's first action on reading the headlines (before slashdot even noticed them) was to call a friend who has been closely involved with the x-prize and scaled composites to make sure she wasn't one of the ones hurt.
  • by cshay ( 79326 ) on Friday July 27, 2007 @02:51AM (#20007055)
    Some of the articles say that one Glenn May was killed. I wonder if this was him? http://bikerodnkustom3.homestead.com/danger.html [homestead.com]
  • by Strider- ( 39683 ) on Friday July 27, 2007 @02:53AM (#20007065)

    Among the safety innovations of this rocket is that a single fiber optic cable is wound around and around the tank, so that if it ruptures anyplace it will cut the cable, and the rocket will be shut down immediately.

    Actually, this is standard in a lot of rocketry situations. On the space shuttle, the electrical wire that controls the hydrazine valve to the thruster is wrapped around the thruster bell. If something goes wrong, and the bell fails, it will cut power to the control valve, causing it to close, and thus shutting down the thruster.

    This is the basic principle of "Fail Safe" design. To me, the problem with the fiber optic cable is that the fiber cable is just a data control. It would be better if they wrapped the power line around it, so that a failure would cut the power, and thus cause it to go safe.
  • Re:Not surprised... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by suzerain ( 245705 ) on Friday July 27, 2007 @07:42AM (#20008529)
    Not only that -- when the leader of the Thunderbirds was on the Daily Show, he said something I found kind of surprising. He's been the leader now for (I think) 3 years or so, and he has not changed the routine from what it was before he was there. They most definitely do not push boundaries of any kind; they perform a very calculated show to wow people, kind of like circus acrobats. Is it dangerous? sure. Pushing the limits? Not so much.
  • Particle Impingement (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DivemasterJoe ( 932367 ) on Friday July 27, 2007 @10:14AM (#20010227)

    Given this incident occurred during a oxidizer flow rate test I am left wondering if particle impingement somewhere in the NO2 system may have been the culprit.

    I blend a great deal of "exotic" breathing gases used for technical scuba operations and one of my primary concerns is having O2 "clean" equipment. The goal is to avoid any particles of material (dust, lubricant, etc) in the valves, lines, regulators, and cylinders that may be forced through very tiny orifices at high speed. The resulting friction inside a high pressure line, valve, or regulator can be enough to cause ignition of the particle. Of course, in the presence of an oxidizer, even a tiny bit of ignited material can cause other components in the system to fail. Valves and regulators are made of brass and have internal components made of nylon and rubber. The resulting cascade of failures can be quite devastating, especially if the pressure vessel is compromised.

    Just a thought...

  • by everphilski ( 877346 ) on Friday July 27, 2007 @11:48AM (#20011699) Journal
    He gave nearly the same presentation at the AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference two years ago now. It was a good talk, over all. However, he is a bit of a dreamer. I'm not saying that is completely a bad thing. But if you believe for one second that SpaceShipOne can be scaled up to an orbital vehicle - something he implied in his presentation - I have oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in. Nice bridge, too ...

    He is right that the little guys have their chance at space - look at Armadillo Aerospace, XCOR, Masten Space Systems, etc. They are all realizing the dream, watching their budgets and doing their best to lower the cost of entry to space. And if they do, that will be something unique.

    A third and tangential point - NASA and the alternative space community have differing goals; so the 'If you think a government space program has any chance of accomplishing anything' really doesn't make much sense. 'Burt Rutan and his goals and how he hopes to accomplish them' ... Government funded space programs have sent probes from the sun, to past Pluto, to Mars, landed men on the moon, hosted men and women in earth orbit. What has Burt Rutan done again? Two suborbital space shots? I think NASA did that back in the 50's... (I'm an aerospace engineer. I also used to work for the Army designing missiles, I now work for NASA designing Ares. You might think I'm biased, but I do know people working in alt.space. I wish them all the best, and from my discussions with some of them, they know what their position is in history. What they are doing has been done before, their goal is to lower the cost of entry and raise the flight count per year. Achieving that will be a great success and open up space to the masses...)

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Working...